2022: Schweikert Voted Against Re-Authorizing A Bureau Of Reclamation Program To Develop Strategies To Address Climate Change Impacts On Water Resources. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Continental Divide Trail Completion Act, which "To support water-related research, it would reauthorize a Bureau of Reclamation program to assess and develop strategies to address the impacts of climate change on water resources." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 218-199, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 414, 7/29/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5118]
The Bill Would Also Establish An Interagency Water Data Council To Develop And Implement National Water Data Framework And Establish An Open Access Evapotranspiration Data Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, "establish an interagency water data council to support the development and implementation of a national water data framework; and establish an open access evapotranspiration data program within the U.S. Geological Survey." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/22]
The Bill Would Direct The U.S. Geological Survey To Examine Drought Impacts On Saline Lakes In The Great Basin, Including Great Salt Lake. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would also direct the U.S. Geological Survey to study the impact of drought conditions on saline lakes in the Great Basin, including the Great Salt Lake, a provision based on a bill introduced by Rep. Blake D. Moore, R-Utah." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/22]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Appropriating $1.9 Billion To The Bureau Of Reclamation For FY 2023 To Mitigate Droughts And Other Water Resource Projects. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, which would provide "$1.9 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to address drought and other water resource projects." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. Congress passed and signed into law the FY 2023 Budget through H.R. 2617. [House Vote 383, 7/20/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/20/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8294]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Provided $1.7 Billion For The Bureau of Reclamation, A Federal Agency That Oversees Water Resource Management. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2020 minibus spending bill, which represented 8 of the 12 appropriations bills. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "provides $1.7 billion for activities of the Bureau of Reclamation, $110 million (7%) more than FY 2019 and $550 million (50%) more than requested. The bureau is charged with developing water supplies and reclaiming arid lands in the Western United States. Most of that total, $1.5 billion, is for activities that support the development, construction, management and restoration of water and related natural resources. It also includes the requested $55 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, $7 million less than FY 2019." The vote was a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 297-120. The Senate later passed the bill and the President signed the bill into law. [House Vote 689, 12/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1865]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Required More Water To Be Pumped To The Central Valley Of California From Northern California During Times Of Drought. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that required more water to be pumped to California's Central Valley for agricultural purposes during times of drought. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "require[d] that more water from Northern California be pumped south for agricultural uses in the Central Valley in times of drought, and would require the Interior and Commerce departments to approve any emergency projects or operations that would quickly provide additional water to those users." The vote was on passage and the House passed the legislation by a vote of 245 to 176. The legislation died in the Senate, but a 2016 water infrastructure authorization bill included similar policy. [House Vote 447, 7/16/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/16; Congressional Actions, S. 612; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2898]
The Legislation Expedited Environmental Review Processes For Water Projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would also implement a coordinated environmental review process to expedite the environmental review of certain water projects, such as dams and water storage facilities." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/15]
The Legislation Altered How Much Water Was Used To Support Certain Fish Species. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Additionally, the bill would modify the government evaluation process for determining whether the pumping of additional water south in California is harmful to certain fish species." According to the Los Angeles Times, "The House bill aims to funnel more water to San Joaquin Valley growers by reducing the amount used to support endangered fish populations, among a number of other provisions." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/15; Los Angeles Times, 7/16/15]
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-CA) Via The Los Angeles Times: Legislation Would Negatively Impact Endangered Species. According to the Los Angeles Times, "'We know this won't become a law, so why are we wasting time on it? Because Republicans will not miss an opportunity to attack the Endangered Species Act,' said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). 'They are driving the extinction of fish and wildlife one species at a time.'" [Los Angeles Times, 7/16/15]
Opponents Said The Legislation Was Meant To Override Protections For Various Fish And Wildlife. According to the Los Angeles Times, "But Democrats, environmental groups and commercial fishermen called the measure a bid to override legal protections for salmon, migratory birds and other fish and wildlife. They said it would repeal the settlement of an 18-year lawsuit involving the restoration of the San Joaquin River, and limit the federal government's ability to protect commercial and tribal fisheries on the Trinity and Klamath rivers." [Los Angeles Times, 7/16/15]
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA): Legislation Would Have Micromanaged The State's Water Systems. In a floor speech by Rep. Huffman said, "We are back today to consider yet another bill that harms West Coast fisheries and tribal interests, another bill that undermines State law, another bill that micromanages the most complex water system in the world in a way that benefits a select few at the expense of many others across the State of California, another bill that is going nowhere." [Congressional Record, 7/16/15]
The State Of California, Major Newspapers, And The Department Of The Interior Opposed The Legislation. In a floor speech by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) said, "We have a SAP from the administration. We have a withering three-page letter of opposition critiquing the bill from the Department of the Interior. The two largest circulation papers in California have both editorialized against it. The State of California is on record opposing prior versions of this bill." [Congressional Record, 7/16/15]
Department Of Interior Via Rep, Jared Huffman (D-CA): Legislation Might Limit Access To Water By Creating Unneeded Complexity. In a floor speech by Rep. Huffman said, "Here's what the Department of the Interior said last week in a letter to our committee, in lieu of testimony, of course, because there was no legislative hearing on the bill. They said: 'Instead of increasing water supplies, H.R. 2898 dictates operational decisions and imposes an additional new legal standard. Instead of saving water, this could actually limit water supplies by creating new and confusing conflicts with existing laws, thereby adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to Federal and State project operations. As a result of this additional standard, we believe H.R. 2898 will slow decisionmaking, generate significant litigation, and limit the real-time operational flexibility that is so critical to maximizing water delivery.'" [Congressional Record, 7/16/15]
There Was Bipartisan Support For The Provision That Pushed The Government To Finish Environmental Reviews For Water Projects. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Among those provisions that won bipartisan praise was one that would push the federal government to conclude reviews of proposed water storage facilities." [Los Angeles Times, 7/16/15]
California Had Been In A State Of Drought, With Economic Loss To Agriculture Estimated At $2.7 Billion This Year. According to the Los Angeles Times, "According to a recent UC Davis study, more than half a million acres of farmland will be fallowed this year due to drought. Researchers estimated that the total economic loss to state agriculture would be about $2.7 billion, and include the loss of 18,600 jobs." [Los Angeles Times, 7/16/15]
Supporters Said The Legislation Would Expand Water Infrastructure To Ensure An Adequate Water Supply For Farmers. According to the Los Angeles Times, "'Congress cannot make it rain, but we can enact policies that expand our water infrastructure, allow for more water conveyance, and utilize legitimate science to ensure a reliable water supply for farmers and families,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), the bill's author, said in a statement." [Los Angeles Times, 7/16/15]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Provide Greater Liability Protections For Permit Holders Under The Clean Water Act And To Limit The Government's Ability To Revoke Issued Permits. In March 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill (HR 7023), as amended, that would modify the process and requirements for issuing permits under the Clean Water Act, including permits issued by EPA for the discharge of pollutants and those issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredge and fill materials and for building infrastructure such as oil and gas pipelines over waterways. It would provide greater liability protections for permit holders acting in good faith from enforcement actions and third-party lawsuits, codify certain requirements and practices for general permits and limit the ability of executive agencies or federal courts to revoke or block permits that have been issued. HR 7023 is the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 213 to 205. [House Vote 101, 3/21/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/21/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7023]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Reauthorizing A National Dam Safety Program. In November 2013, Schweikert voted against a motion to instruct conferees to, according to Congressional Quarterly, "agree to Senate-passed provisions that would reauthorize a national dam safety program through fiscal 2018 and authorize $9.2 million per year for the program." The underlying legislation was a water bill. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 347 to 76. The final conference report, which became law, reauthorized dam safety programs through FY 2019. [House Vote 582, 11/14/13; Congressional Quarterly, 11/14/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/19/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3080]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Requiring Chemical Manufacturers Whose Items Could Potentially Contaminate Public Drinking Water To Submit Information To State And Federal Agencies On The Product's Potential Risk. In February 2016, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] any manufacturer of items that contain chemicals that could contaminate public drinking water to submit data to relevant state and federal agencies on the product's risks to human health and the environment, including studies on neurotoxicity and cancer-causing effects. Exposing the public to such items without these studies would be considered prohibited under a federal toxic substances law." The underlying legislation was a bill that, according to AP would have "expand[ed] access to hunting and fishing areas on public lands, extend[ed] protections for the use of lead bullets in hunting and strip[ped] wolves of federal protections in four states." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 165 to 238. [House Vote 100, 2/26/16; Congressional Quarterly, 2/26/16; AP Via US News & World Report, 2/26/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2406]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Increase FERC's Authority On Permitting For Hydropower Projects, Including Setting Deadlines For Other Agency Reviews As Part Of An Effort To Accelerate Hydropower Construction Projects As Part Of A Bill That Overhauled Federal Energy Policy. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would effectively streamline and accelerate the federal permitting process for hydropower projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "require[d] FERC to minimize interfering on the 'exercise and enjoyment of property rights' when issuing hydropower licenses. [...] It designate[d] the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for reviewing proposals for building or significantly modifying either type of project. In doing so, the agency must identify all agencies considering an aspect of an application and set the schedule for review, including a deadline for a final decision. Cooperating agencies would carry out reviews concurrently, identifying any issues of concern that may delay or prevent an agency from meeting the schedule established by FERC, and defer to FERC on the scope of the environmental review in accordance with applicable federal law." The underlying legislation was, according to Reuters, "a wide-ranging bill on energy [...] that includes a measure to repeal the 40-year-old oil export ban. [...] The bill would also speed the permitting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and improve the aging power grid." The vote was on passage. The House passed the measure by a vote of 249 to 174. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 672, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15; Reuters, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8]
Bill Supporters Note That The Bill Streamlines The Permitting Process For Hydropower Projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It similarly streamlines the process for reviewing and approving hydropower projects, which is an essential component of providing an 'all of the above' national energy strategy and ensuring that energy costs to U.S. consumers are affordable. Hydropower is a proven technology that provides the nation with energy security, stability and reliability within our own borders, but the regulatory process for those projects is considerably longer than for most other energy projects, they note, saying outdated federal rules should not prevent us from tapping into a cost-competitive resource that is also the nation's largest renewable-energy source." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: Bill Would "Minimize Negative Impacts Associated With The Sitting Of Hydropower Projects, Including Negative Impacts On Safety, Fish And Wildlife, Water Quality And Conservation." According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "Further, H.R. 8 would undermine the current hydropower licensing regulatory process in place under the Federal Power Act that works to minimize negative impacts associated with the siting of hydropower projects, including negative impacts on safety, fish and wildlife, water quality and conservation, and a range of additional natural resources and cultural values. Among the ways that H.R. 8 would undermine this process would be by creating a new exemption from licensing that would undercut bedrock environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act." [Statement of Administration Policy, 11/30/15]
Bill Opponents Claim That The Bill Would Create Arbitrary Deadlines For Review Of Potential Environmental Impacts. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[Bill opponents] say the bill sets arbitrary deadlines that ride roughshod over important environmental regulations meant to protect the public's health, chastising requirements that decisions on pipeline applications be made within relatively short time frames, no matter how complex an application and proposed project may be. This is especially egregious considering that FERC is not required to provide other agencies with information that may be needed to make such decisions. It also undercuts the president's Clean Power Plan and the actions of the Obama administration to address the threat of climate change under the guise of energy reliability by requiring FERC to conduct a 'reliability analysis' of rules that cost over a billion dollars, they say, while other 'reliability' requirements would effectively favor coal-fired and nuclear power plants over renewable-energy sources." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
Bill Opponents Claimed That The Bill Ignored Climate Change. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, mainly Democrats, agree that with the changing landscape of U.S. energy the nation's energy infrastructure should be updated and modernized, but they argue that the bill effectively continues past policies and keeps the nation dependent on fossil fuels, rather than taking advantage of increases of clean, renewable energy. In fact, they say, the bill totally ignores the growing dangers of climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels and would actually act to increase fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Reauthorize The Marine Debris Act And To Expand The Authorities And Funding Sources Of The National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Regarding The Marine Debris Program. In March 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill (HR 886), as amended, that would reauthorize the Marine Debris Act through fiscal 2025. It would authorize $15 million per year to fund programs to prevent, identify and reduce the occurrence of marine debris. It would clarify that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration can enter into agreements outside of contracts for the Marine Debris Program and would permit NOAA to make in-kind contributions as well as receive and expend funds from outside sources. The bill also would create a CEO for the Marine Debris Foundation and clarify the process for appointing and removing members of the foundation. It would require the foundation's principal office to be in a coastal shoreline community or the National Capital Region. The bill would also require the development and implementation of best practices to conduct outreach to Native American tribes. HR 886 is the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 326 to 73. [House Vote 80, 3/11/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/11/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 886]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funds For President Obama's National Ocean Policy. In July 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds to implement, administer or enforce the Obama administration's National Ocean Policy." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environment appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 237 to 189. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 445, 7/13/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1321; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
President Obama Issued An Executive Order Creating The National Ocean Commission Which Would Attempt To Better Coordinate Planning Among Federal Agencies That Use Coastal And Ocean Areas. According to Science Magazine, "It wouldn't have prevented the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but a new national ocean policy, announced today by the White House, was welcomed by environmentalists. The policy is intended to promote oceans and great lakes that are 'healthy and resilient, safe and productive.' The policy reflects a 'modern outlook that doesn't mistake the oceans for wilderness, but a work zone where we need zoning,' comments Chris Mann of the Pew Environment Group, who hopes the policy will increase the focus on environmental stewardship. [...] The order creates a National Ocean Commission---co-chaired by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy---that would try to improve coordination and planning among federal agencies and state and local governments for the many uses of the coastal zone." [Science Magazine, 7/19/10]
The Policy Would Create Marine Spatial Planning To Reduce Conflicts Between Uses Of The Oceans. According to Science Magazine, "Based on two earlier reports from an ocean policy task force, the policy calls for marine spatial planning to reduce conflicts between users of the oceans and to better preserve ecosystems. The new commission won't create new regulations or do any zoning, however. Under the policy, new regional organizations would create plans for various parts of the U.S. coastline within 6 to 12 months. The commission would provide guidance for these plans and ultimately help resolve the thorniest conflicts." [Science Magazine, 7/19/10]
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA): The National Ocean Policy Was Federal Overreach; The Administration Did Not Consult Congress. In a floor speech, Rep. Calvert said, "Unfortunately, the way the administration developed its National Ocean Policy, it increases the opportunities for overreach. The implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping, that it may allow the Federal Government to effect agricultural practices, mining, energy producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact on the oceans. The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be." [Congressional Record, 5/25/16]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing The Continued Implementation Of Coastal And Marine Spatial Planning Stemming From President Obama's National Ocean Policy. In May 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] a provision in the bill that would bar use of funds for further implementation of the coastal and marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based management components of the National Ocean Policy developed under a 2010 executive order." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 energy and water appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 189 to 228. The underlying bill later failed to pass the House. [House Vote 253, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1109; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
President Obama Issued An Executive Order Creating The National Ocean Commission Which Would Attempt To Better Coordinate Planning Among Federal Agencies That Use Coastal And Ocean Areas. According to Science Magazine, "It wouldn't have prevented the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but a new national ocean policy, announced today by the White House, was welcomed by environmentalists. The policy is intended to promote oceans and great lakes that are 'healthy and resilient, safe and productive.' The policy reflects a 'modern outlook that doesn't mistake the oceans for wilderness, but a work zone where we need zoning,' comments Chris Mann of the Pew Environment Group, who hopes the policy will increase the focus on environmental stewardship. [...] The order creates a National Ocean Commission---co-chaired by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy---that would try to improve coordination and planning among federal agencies and state and local governments for the many uses of the coastal zone." [Science Magazine, 7/19/10]
The Policy Would Create Marine Spatial Planning To Reduce Conflicts Between Uses Of The Oceans. According to Science Magazine, "Based on two earlier reports from an ocean policy task force, the policy calls for marine spatial planning to reduce conflicts between users of the oceans and to better preserve ecosystems. The new commission won't create new regulations or do any zoning, however. Under the policy, new regional organizations would create plans for various parts of the U.S. coastline within 6 to 12 months. The commission would provide guidance for these plans and ultimately help resolve the thorniest conflicts." [Science Magazine, 7/19/10]
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA): The National Ocean Policy Was Federal Overreach; The Administration Did Not Consult Congress. In a floor speech, Rep. Calvert said, "Unfortunately, the way the administration developed its National Ocean Policy, it increases the opportunities for overreach. The implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping, that it may allow the Federal Government to effect agricultural practices, mining, energy producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact on the oceans. The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be." [Congressional Record, 5/25/16]
2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies, Reauthorized SNAP - But With New Work Requirements -, And Gave The EPA The Authority To Delay Protections Against Pesticides. In June 2018, Schweikert voted for the House GOP Farm Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would require individuals receiving SNAP benefits, who are 18-59 years old, to work or participate in work training programs for a minimum of 20 hours per week, and would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a database to track individuals receiving SNAP benefits. The bill would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, the current sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program) and would modify certain utility standards in the Home Energy Assistance Program to require SNAP benefits recipients to provide documentation of such expenses in order to receive increased benefits using the Standard Utility Allowance. The bill would authorize, with modifications, the farm risk-management program, which gives agriculture producers a choice of receiving price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, for the 2019 through 2023 crop years. The bill would reauthorize several conservation programs, and would increase the conservation reserve program from 24 to 29 million acres and reduce from 750,000 to 500,000 acres the cap for Farmable Wetland Program enrollment. It would also increase the amount authorized annually for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the 2019 through 2023 crop years, with a maximum authorization of $3 billion in 2023. It would eliminate the conservation stewardship program and would also allow the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether a pesticide is likely to jeopardize the survival of a federally designated threatened or endangered species, or the habitat of such a species, without having to consult with federal agencies." The vote was on passage. The House adopted the bill by a vote of 213 to 211. A modified version of the bill was later signed into law. [House Vote 284, 6/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies, Reauthorized SNAP With New Work Requirements, And Gave The EPA The Authority To Delay Protections Against Pesticides. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for the House GOP Farm Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would require individuals receiving SNAP benefits, who are 18-59 years old, to work or participate in work training programs for a minimum of 20 hours per week, and would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a database to track individuals receiving SNAP benefits. The bill would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, the current sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program) and would modify certain utility standards in the Home Energy Assistance Program to require SNAP benefits recipients to provide documentation of such expenses in order to receive increased benefits using the Standard Utility Allowance. The bill would authorize, with modifications, the farm risk-management program, which gives agriculture producers a choice of receiving price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, for the 2019 through 2023 crop years. The bill would reauthorize several conservation programs, and would increase the conservation reserve program from 24 to 29 million acres and reduce from 750,000 to 500,000 acres the cap for Farmable Wetland Program enrollment. It would also increase the amount authorized annually for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the 2019 through 2023 crop years, with a maximum authorization of $3 billion in 2023. It would eliminate the conservation stewardship program and would also allow the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether a pesticide is likely to jeopardize the survival of a federally designated threatened or endangered species, or the habitat of such a species, without having to consult with federal agencies." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 198 to 213. The House later took a revote several weeks later and passed the bill. A modified version of the bill was later signed into law. [House Vote 205, 5/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Authorizing $3 Million In FY 2023 For The EPA To Contract With The National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering And Medicine And The National Science Foundation To Study PFAS, Including PFAS Treatments And Safe Alternatives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act, which would "authorize $3 million in fiscal 2023 for the EPA to enter into two agreements with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to study PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. It would specify that one agreement would direct a study on research and knowledge gaps identified at the 2020 Federal Government Human Health PFAS Research Workshop. The National Science Foundation, in addition to the EPA, would enter into the second agreement, which would direct a study on the research and development needed to advance the understanding of human and environmental contamination by PFAS, including strategies for PFAS treatment and safe alternatives to the chemicals. It would require both agreements to be reached within 90 days of the appropriation of funds, and the National Academies' reports to be submitted to Congress within 540 days of the agreements being finalized. It would direct the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, within 180 days of the reports' submission, to submit to Congress a plan to coordinate federal PFAS research, development and demonstration activities." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 359-62, thus the bill was sent to Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 389, 7/26/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/26/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7289]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Required A Report On The Progress Of The Defense Department's Implementation Of On-Site PFAS Destruction Technologies Without Incineration And Extended The Moratorium On PFAS Incineration. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would "require the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit a report to Congress on the progress of the Defense Department's implementation of on-site PFAS destruction technologies not requiring incineration and extend the moratorium on PFAS incineration enacted in the fiscal 2022 NDAA." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote 233-196. [House Vote 330, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]
2019: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Which Contained Provisions To Reduce PFA Exposure. In December 2019, Schweikert effectively voted for the FY 2020 NDAA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure prohibits the release of fluorinated firefighting foam at military installations except in cases of emergency response or in limited circumstances for training or testing of equipment where complete containment, capture, and proper disposal mechanisms are in place to ensure no foam is released into the environment. The agreement requires the department to finalize a military specification for PFAS firefighting agent by January 2023, and it prohibits their use in firefighting after October 2023. It also imposes a complete ban on fluorinated foams on military installations by October 2024, although the department may extend the date for up to one year using a waiver authority [...] The measure also requires the EPA to include PFAS and their associated salts in the toxics release inventory." The vote was on adoption of the conference report to accompany the bill. The House adopted the conference report by a vote of 377-48. The bill was later passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. [House Vote 672, 12/11/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, S.1790]
2016: Schweikert Voted For A Water Infrastructure Authorization Bill That Required Additional Water Be Pumped From Northern California To The Central Valley Rather Than Keeping The Water North For Environmental Reasons. In December 2016, Schweikert voted for a water infrastructure authorization bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "authorize[d] approximately $10 billion for construction of 30 Army Corps of Engineers water projects, including navigation, flood control and environmental restoration projects. It would [have] authorize[d] feasibility studies for 30 possible water projects, and would [have] deauthorize[d] nine existing projects. It also would [have] create[d] an expedited process for deauthorization of other projects that are no longer viable for construction. It would [have] authorize[d] $170 million in response to the lead-contaminated water system in Flint, Mich., including $100 million in capitalization grants to the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund that the city could use to replace the its water pipes. It also would [have] create[d] new programs related to safe drinking water. The measure would [have] require[d] additional water be pumped south from Northern California." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 61. The Senate later passed the legislation, thus the bill was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 622, 12/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/16; Congressional Actions, S. 612]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment Requiring A Permit For A Pesticide If There Was Peer-Reviewed Based Evidence That The Pesticide Could Harm Pregnant Women; The Underlying Bill Suspended The Need For A Permit To Use Pesticides Near Navigable Waters. In May 2016, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "exempt[ed] the discharge of a pesticide from the bill's provisions if there is evidence, based on peer-reviewed science, that the pesticide could harm pregnant women or have adverse effects on early childhood development." The underlying legislation would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "temporarily modif[ied] the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to prohibit the EPA or a state government from requiring a permit for the use of registered pesticides near navigable waters. The measure also would [have] modif[ied] the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to prohibit the EPA and states from requiring permits for the point source use of a pesticide registered under FIFRA, with certain exceptions. The temporary prohibitions would [have] end[ed] on Sept. 30, 2018." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 182 to 232. [House Vote 236, 5/24/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/24/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 897]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Authorize Various Water Resource Development And Environmental Infrastructure Projects With A Total Of $5 Billion In Funding. In December 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill, as amended, that would authorize a wide range of Army Corps of Engineers projects and programs related to water resource development. It would authorize 21 new construction projects and 162 new feasibility studies as well as 40 feasibility studies for modifying existing projects. It would add more than 190 new environmental infrastructure projects to existing authorizations and would authorize more than $3.3 billion in new funding for such projects. It would require the corps to expedite feasibility studies for 36 previously authorized projects. It also would modify 64 existing infrastructure projects to authorize an additional $1.6 billion in environmental infrastructure, including a $20 million increase in funding for the Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery program. It also would deauthorize several projects including a navigation initiative for Connecticut's Thames River. The bill also would establish a 10-year pilot program for alternative means of delivering water projects. Among other provisions, it would reauthorize the Economic Development Administration within the Commerce Department for five years through fiscal 2029. The measure also would redistribute unobligated Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act funds to states through the Surface Transportation Block Grant program. It also would require the General Services Administration to sell certain unused federal property and consider consolidating or offloading federal buildings unless at least 60 percent of the building's federal workers return to the office." The House passed the bill by a vote of 399 to 18. [House Vote 493, 12/10/24; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/24; Congressional Actions, S. 4367]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Suspend The EPA's Or State Government's Authority To Require A Permit To Use Pesticides Near Navigable Water. In May 2017, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the EPA and states from requiring permits for the point source use of a pesticide registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It would [have] prohibit[ed] the EPA or states from requiring a Federal Water Pollution Control Act permit for the use of registered pesticides near navigable waters." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 256 to 165. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 282, 5/24/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/24/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 953]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2017 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill Which Also Provided $1.1 Billion In Zika Funding, $800 Million Less Than Requested While Also Suspending For Six Months The EPA's Or State Government's From "Requiring A Separate Clean Water Act Permit" For Using Pesticides Near Navigable Water. In June 2016, Schweikert voted for an FY 2017 military construction and veterans affairs conference report which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] $82.5 billion in fiscal 2017 appropriations for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and military housing and would provide $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika virus with about $750 million in offsets." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "To help in mosquito control efforts, the agreement for six months prohibits EPA or state governments from requiring a separate Clean Water Act permit for applying registered pesticides near navigable waters." The vote was on the conference report. The House agreed to the legislation by a vote of 239 to 171. The Senate later failed to invoke cloture on the conference report. [House Vote 342, 6/23/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Suspend The EPA's Or State Government's Authority To Require A Permit To Use Pesticides Near Navigable Water. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "temporarily modif[ied] the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to prohibit the EPA or a state government from requiring a permit for the use of registered pesticides near navigable waters. The measure also would [have] modif[ied] the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to prohibit the EPA and states from requiring permits for the point source use of a pesticide registered under FIFRA, with certain exceptions. The temporary prohibitions would [have] end[ed] on Sept. 30, 2018." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 258 to 156. The Senate did not act on the legislation. [House Vote 237, 5/24/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/24/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 897]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Suspend The EPA's Or State Government's Authority To Require A Permit To Use Pesticides Near Navigable Water. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "temporarily modif[ied] the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to prohibit the EPA or a state government from requiring a permit for the use of registered pesticides near navigable waters. The measure also would [have] modif[ied] the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to prohibit the EPA and states from requiring permits for the point source use of a pesticide registered under FIFRA, with certain exceptions. The temporary prohibitions would end on Sept. 30, 2018." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, requiring a two-thirds majority, or 281 affirmative votes. The House rejected to the bill by a vote of 262 to 159. The House later passed the bill again under regular order. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 199, 5/17/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/17/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 897]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Private The Tennessee Valley Authority As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for to privatize the TVA. According to the Republican Study Committee, the "Because power generation no longer needs to be carried out by the federal government, the TVA's electric utility functions should be transferred to the private sector." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Privatize The Tennessee Valley Authority. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The TVA was created in 1933 to develop hydroelectric capability on the Tennessee River. Since that time, the federally-run TVA has expanded its electric generating and transmission infrastructure significantly, accounting for five-percent of the nation's electric generation in 2010. Because power generation no longer needs to be carried out by the federal government, the TVA's electric utility functions should be transferred to the private sector, saving the taxpayers $550 million over the next ten years." The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans' FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 615; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2016: Schweikert Voted For A Water Infrastructure Authorization Bill That Authorized $10 Billion For 30 Army Corp Of Engineers Water Projects. In December 2016, Schweikert voted for a water infrastructure authorization bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "authorize[d] approximately $10 billion for construction of 30 Army Corps of Engineers water projects, including navigation, flood control and environmental restoration projects. It would [have] authorize[d] feasibility studies for 30 possible water projects, and would [have] deauthorize[d] nine existing projects. It also would [have] create[d] an expedited process for deauthorization of other projects that are no longer viable for construction. It would [have] authorize[d] $170 million in response to the lead-contaminated water system in Flint, Mich., including $100 million in capitalization grants to the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund that the city could use to replace the its water pipes. It also would [have] create[d] new programs related to safe drinking water. The measure would [have] require[d] additional water be pumped south from Northern California." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 61. The Senate later passed the legislation, thus the bill was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 622, 12/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/16; Congressional Actions, S. 612]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Providing An Additional $10 Million For Flood Control, Port And Navigation Development, And Water Restoration Projects; As Well As An Additional $10 Million For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy. In July 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] increase[d] by $10 million the amount provided in the bill for the Army Corps of Engineers construction activities, specifically for water restoration projects, flood control and the development of navigation and ports. It would [have] increase[d] by $10 million the amount provided in the bill for the Energy Department's energy efficiency and renewable energy account and decrease[d] by $20 million the amount provided for Energy Department salaries and expenses." The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions to report it back immediately with the specified amendment. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 188 to 231. [House Vote 401, 7/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
Motion's Sponsor Argued $10 Million For Preventative Water Projects Could Help Save Lives During Flood Season, While $10 Million For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Would Pare Back The Underlying Bill's "Harsh" $113 Million Cut To Those Areas. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Bill Enyart (D-IL), the motion's sponsor, said, "Also well known [sic] across the State and particularly along Illinois' Mississippi River border were the efforts of men and women of the Illinois National Guard during flood season--efforts, resources, and dollars that can be saved with the preventative measures funded in this amendment. The amendment before us today provides an additional $10 million to the Army Corps of Engineers for projects that could include levee construction, levee repair, flood mitigation, and flood prevention. [...] Also included in this amendment is an additional $10 million for the energy efficiency and renewable energy account. Current language in the bill is almost $113 million less than in 2014 and $530 million less than the administration's request. We simply cannot afford such harsh reductions in funding for an area where our country desperately needs growth: energy efficiency and independence." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
Opponent Argued That Bill Already Increased Funding For The Army Corps Of Engineers By $25 Million, When The Administration Would Have Cut $1 Billion, And That Departmental Administration (DA) Funding Should Not Be Cut Any Further Than It Was Already. According to the Congressional Record, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson (R-IA) said, "I wish the gentleman [Rep. Enyart] who just spoke would call the administration. His budget request was nearly $1 billion below last year's for the Army Corps of Engineers. That is what the administration proposed to us. We restored that and, in fact, increased last year's Army Corps of Engineers budget by $25 million while, at the same time, cutting $50 million out of the overall bill, so I wish he would talk to the administration about its budget request. This is a balanced bill, made more balanced by the 2 days of amendments we have debated--some accepted, some not accepted--from all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have already taken $45 million out of the DA account. I know it is an easy account to target, to just take money out of, but at some point in time, you have to stop, and we have already taken $45 million out of the DA account." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut Nearly 7.5 Percent From All Non-Defense Related Energy And Water Development Accounts, Such As Those For The Army Corps Of Engineers, For A Total Cut Of $1.34 Billion. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2014 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would reduce by 7.5 percent all accounts in the bill except the Nuclear Security Administration, defense activities and the Nuclear Facilities Safety Board." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 131 to 289. [House Vote 400, 7/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1049; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
Opponent Noted That Proposed Cut Would Apply To Bill's Funding For The Army Corps of Engineers, And Through Them, For Water Infrastructure Projects Like Locks and Dams. According to the Congressional Record, Simpson said, "This type of approach, I think, that would take these accounts, only some accounts, back to the 1998 [sic] levels, I think, would hurt our economy. And, in fact, one of the big parts of our account is the Army Corps of Engineers, which does water infrastructure, locks, dams, harbor maintenance, all of that kind of stuff which is vital to our economy. I don't know that you want to go in and cut that by 7.8 [sic] percent. The President proposed a $1 billion cut in it, a huge cut in it. We restored it because we, both Republicans and Democrats, realize how important the water infrastructure of this country is. Those are the decisions that we make on the Appropriations Committee, a committee that I am proud to serve on, that has made, over the last several years, some very, very difficult decisions, and will continue to do so because, just like every Member of this Congress, we realize we can't continue racking up the debt as we have over the last several decades." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
Amendment's Sponsor Said It Would Reduce Spending In The Bill To FY 2008 Levels, With The Exception Of Defense-Related Spending In The Bill, Which Had Purportedly Already Been Considered By The House. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), the amendment's sponsor, said, "I rise this evening to offer an amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would cut spending back to the fiscal year 2008 level. While I appreciate the work of the Appropriations Committee in crafting this important bill that does decrease spending, we must all recognize that a cut of $50 million is a rounding error here in Washington. My amendment makes an across-the-board cut of 7.48 percent to the bill in order to decrease the amount back to the fiscal year 2008 level. The Congressional Budget Office confirms my amendment would reduce budget authority by $1.34 billion. Defense accounts are exempt from these savings because this House just addressed defense programs in the National Defense Authorization Act a few months ago." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Authorizing Certain Water And Water Leasing Rights To Address Water Shortages For Tribes In Arizona. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Continental Divide Trail Completion Act, which would "authorize certain water and water leasing rights to address tribal water shortages in Arizona." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 218-199, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 414, 7/29/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5118]
2022: Schweikert Voted To Authorize An Additional $530 Million For Completion And Maintenance Of The White Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System And Miner Flat Dam Project. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for a bill that would "extend the deadline, from April 30, 2023, to Dec. 30, 2027, for the Interior Department to publish a statement of findings for the White Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System and Miner Flat Dam project. The bill would also adjust the funding previously authorized for the project to reflect changes in construction cost indices, including by authorizing an additional $530 million for use in completing or maintaining the water system. It would require the Bureau of Reclamation to report to Congress annually on expenditures from the water system project's funds." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 378 -- 33, thus the bill was sent to President Biden and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 537, 12/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/21/22; Congressional Actions, S. 3168]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Authorizing $3 Billion For Western Water Projects, Including Water Recycling And Reuse Projects, And Over $1 Billion For Water Resource Projects. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Continental Divide Trail Completion Act, which "Among provisions related to water resources and drought response, the bill would authorize $3 billion for Western water projects, including $1.3 billion for water recycling and reuse projects, and over $1 billion for tribal water resource projects." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 218-199, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 414, 7/29/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5118]
The Bill Would Authorize $1 Billion For A Grant Program In The Bureau Of Reclamation To Support Tribal Clean Water Access Projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would authorize $1 billion for a new Bureau of Reclamation competitive grant program to fund tribal clean water access projects, a provision Neguse originally introduced." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/22]
The Bill Would Authorize $500 Million For The Interior Secretary To Enact Policies To Prevent Critical Reservoirs On The Colorado River From Declining To Substantial Low Levels. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To address drought, the bill would authorize $500 million for the Interior secretary to use to prevent key reservoirs on the Colorado River, including Lake Mead and Lake Powell, from declining to critically low levels." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/22]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring The EPA To Develop Water Quality Standards And Effluent Limitation Standards For All Measurable Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would "require the EPA to develop water quality criteria and effluent limitation standards for all measurable PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, within two years and four years of enactment, respectively." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 329-101, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. The FY 2023 Defense Authorization was passed with H.R. 7776. [House Vote 350, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Defense Authorization Act For FY 2023, Which Included The Water Resources And Development Act. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would, in part, "include the Water Resources and Development Act and the fiscal 2023 intelligence authorization." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 350-80, thus the bill was sent to the Senate for final concurrence. The Senate concurred with the House, sent the final bill to President Biden, and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 516, 12/8/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/8/22; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1512; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7776]